Canadian Innovation Strategy and Policymaking

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Stakeholder Profiles
International Comparison
Documentary Policy Discourse Analysis
References

Canada has faced with the burning issue of incorporating innovation in their economic development process. One of the reasons for a dire need for innovation in Canada was the high productivity rate in the country, which ultimately was stalling growth. The need to speed up the process of the country’s transition into a knowledge-based economy in order to facilitate innovation has become important part of policy making. For this purpose, the policy makers have undertaken extensive planning to develop the innovation strategy in the country.

This section of the paper aims to provide contextual information, validating facts with documents such as appropriate primary and secondary sources. The main aim is to tell the story of how this policy has been developing over the past few years. In order to do this, first the relevant documents in the process has been located. The paper also traces the sources of the documents such as who created it and why was it initiated. Further, the outcome and the present state of the mandate are also traced in this section.

The first step initiating the innovation strategy in Canada started with increased investment on research and development by the Liberal Government since 1993. The initial policy outline was presented with the original Red Book named Creating Opportunity: The Liberal Plan for Canada (Liberal Party of Canada, 1993), which highlights the importance of support given by the federal government to the innovation and development initiatives within the economy.

The first step was to show that the new economy that was forming with the change in the global equations, required greater capacity to innovate and must make the way for private as well as public institutions to become learning originations. The requirement was to stress on the dynamic role of the government to revitalize the manufacturing and the services sector through a process of active learning. The emphasis was on the development of an idea-based economy where innovation becomes paramount and supports the communities who become the root of these developmental processes. Thus, the emphasis was on practical utilization of the research conducted in the laboratory.

The initial stress was on identifying the developmental areas and start creating jobs in those sectors. In pursuing this line of action, the government released a series of policy in 1994 initiating the agenda of creating jobs and enabling growth. The main aim of the policy makers was to create innovation policy to enhance the economic agenda of the government:

Since productivity growth depends on working smarter – for example, mastering the economics of ‘ideas’ – Canada must position itself to be at the forefront of innovation in the products and services we create; in the ways, we organize economic and social activity; and in the ways we govern ourselves. (Government of Canada, 1994, p. 30)

The policy initiative started by the Canadian government was done with the aim of pursuing four areas of development viz. trade, technology, infrastructure development, and business market. Infrastructure spending was important for Canadian government and hence, stress was put on innovation spending. The aim of the program was to increase spending on information highway resulting in the better education system, development in science and technology innovation efforts, and technology diffusion in industries.

The Red Book’s raised expectations were shattered in 1995 and the development process took a dithering path. There were major cuts done by the government on the development activities of the economy. However, three internal committees simultaneously provided their reports suggesting that the government still intended to move ahead in the developmental path adopted in 1993:

… to create in Canada world centres of excellence in scientific discovery; to build a broad base of scientific enquiry; to foster Canadian participation in all major fields of science and technology; and to ensure that new knowledge can be acquired and disseminated widely, from Canadian sources and from around the world. (Paquet & Roy, 1995, p. 141)

The main aim of the science and technology related activity of the Federal government was to fund the research activities of federal agencies, provide support for research activities at high education institutions, supporting research and development in private sector, and propagation of knowledge based activities (Paquet & Roy, 1995).

The next step taken by the Federal government was in 1997. The policy was formulated based on the guidelines provided by OECD, which endorsed the rapid changing of developing economies into knowledge-based economy. The OECD reports stated “more science-intensive… more technology-intensive … as well as more skills-intensive in terms of managing the increasingly complex knowledge base related to productive activities” was being adopted by developing countries (OECD, 1999, p. 15). This report initiated a change in the viewpoint of the policymakers who promptly shifted the issue to the Policy Research Committee (PRC). The PRC conducted a feasibility study in 1997 that emphasized on the importance of knowledge based growth and stresses on innovation and skill recruitment.

Even though there were many activities in relation to innovation in development of the economy, little was actually done in relation to the matter. Mostly, the governments satiated themselves with policy formulations and little attention was paid to practical application.

In 1998, a budget documents was formulated named, The Canadian Opportunity Strategy, that spelled out the commitments and the funding that can be done by the federal government to initiate the innovation strategy (Government of Canada, 1998). The budget document of 1998 promised a sum of $400 million to the developmental activities by 2000-01 (Government of Canada, 1998; Whelan, 2001). In 1999, the budget further increased the allotted spending by $200 million in order to facilitate innovation. Since then, all budgets have shown subsequent increase in spending on innovation and technology. In 2004-05 the investment allotment increased to $1 billion (Côté & Miller, 2012).

Overall, many have raised the question whether Canada was pursuing the right direction to adopt the strategy of innovation (Whelan, 2001). However, mostly it ahs been stated that the innovation strategy undertaken by the Federal government of Canada has not been wholly successful in steering the innovation policy (Côté & Miller, 2012). Rather, the private companies shave stimulated the process of innovation through private decision-making. The next section will discuss the various stakeholders in the innovation policy formulated by the government of Canada.

Stakeholder Profiles

This section aims at locating stakeholders for the innovation development policy adopted by the Canadian government. For this purpose, the paper will utilize information from appropriate policy documents, news databases, and web sites, locate as many stakeholders or interest groups as possible. Then these stakeholders will be grouped into four categories: government, industry, NGOs, and other (if necessary). The paper will describe who are the beneficiaries of the government and if there is a unanimity or split within each group. For each of the stakeholders, the paper will analyse the individual benefits and setbacks they will face if the policy facilitates or impedes their operations.

Government

Education and innovation in science and technology is an area where the other group of stakeholders of the innovation policy are. The government stakeholders are the education department (both primary, secondary, and higher education) and development of science and technology innovation in the country.

In order to develop the innovation in science and technology, the government through its national Science Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) sponsored “a series of consultations in spring 2002 with more than 300 stakeholders, including students, university and college professors and administrators, industry leaders, and public servants from provincial and federal departments and agencies.” (NSERC, 2010).

The stakeholders in the education sector are the students, educators, education institutions, and association of colleges, schools, universities, and community educational institutions. The education related stakeholders have the aim of enhancing the education policy in the country through boosting of innovation and research in the field of education. Innovation and research in the field of education will not only help the direct stakeholders but also the community as a whole as this will help develop the future generation.

The aim of the council was to increase the participation of students and children in the innovation process. Thus, they promoted science fairs and Olympiads to enhance the interest of children in these areas. They initiated the PromoScience program that created chair for development of scientific research (NSERC, 2010). Further, the program also increased the award programs for undergraduate students. They provided postgraduate scholarships for various fields and especially doctoral candidates. Further, they also started Industrial Postgraduate Scholarship (NSERC, 2010). NSERC aims at enhancing the opportunity of Canadian student aspiring to study abroad. In order to do so NSERC has implemented the following policies:

Implement agreements with Japan and Taiwan for summer research experiences and promote Canadian participation in the new Marie Curie International Fellowships under the European Union’s Sixth Framework Program, by raising awareness of the program. Promote awareness of existing agreements with Japan and the United Kingdom among Canadian students to increase their participation in competitions. Increase NSERC’s knowledge of facilities and expertise abroad, and determine methods and incentives to encourage more Canadians to become research students in excellent laboratories abroad. (NSERC, 2010, para 11)

In a separate document, named Canada’s International Education Strategy, Federal Government of Canada presents the policy outlines for enhancing higher studies in foreign land. The reason provided for enhancing international educational collaboration in Canada is believed to be required to enhance the competitiveness of the educational environment of the country. The Economic Action Plan of 2011 thus states,

The Government of Canada is committed to working with its key stakeholders in the international education sector to advance shared goals. Currently, the National Education Marketing Roundtable, which includes some of the sector’s most important stakeholders, gauges ongoing client satisfaction and solicits constructive advice on matters related to international education. (Canadian Bureau for International Education, 2014, para 51)

This policy will definitely enhance the benefits reaped by the students of Canada. The policies if implemented will enhance and facilitate development of young talent who would dedicate their mind in the research projects. Pecuniary and financial aid will help the students access their abilities without facing the problem of financing the project. However, if the project failed, it would create a direct setback on the research in academia where new and bright students may fail to make contribution to the field of science and technology due to lack of opportunity.

NGO

The non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are dedicated towards establishing innovation policy. One of the efforts that have been directly related to establish innovation is in the food processing industry where NGOs like Canadian Agricultural Policy Institution (CAPI) has (CAPI, 2014). Their aim is to analyse the deficit of skilled labour in the food processing institutes and ensure that the food processing industries recruit skilled employees who would enhance innovation within the company. Thus, NGOs have been instrumental in driving innovation in establishing the innovation policy in Canada’s largest industrial sector. Due to enhance NGO rallying these companies has increased their investment in the research and development.

Industry

Many Canadian companies have increased their investments in order to become competitive and sustain their business due to the rising global demand for innovation and the federal government’s initiative to boost innovation and research in the country. If these stakeholders do not adopt the policy of innovation, then they will perish in complacency while the global market demands for new and advanced products.

Other

The stakeholders who are included in the others section is Health and medical facilities. The health and medical are one of the primary stakeholders for the innovation policy of the Federal government. The stakeholders may be the health care facilitators as well as heath care consumers. They will be highly benefited with an increase in the federal spending in innovation. A policy of innovation will help the healthcare sector to boost their reach and allow them to provide highly advanced facility to the people.

The Federal government has formed an advisory committee on Healthcare Innovation in 2014. If the proposition is passed, this will immensely facilitate healthcare provided to cancer and other fatally ailing patients. The health care providers will also have greater amenities and facilities at hand, which would be a direct effect on increased innovation in the field. If the policies suggested by the council if formulated will immensely help in creating a sustaining healthcare system and provide better treatment to the patients in Canada.

Primary care in Canada has been an area of myriad policies and government interventions (Hutchison, Abelson, & Lavis, 2001). However, it is believed that once the innovation polices are implemented, they will follow the path dependence model and create institutes that will support the policy. The innovation in primary care was first introduced in 1970s in Canada however, the policy was stalled, and the innovation process was ended in 1973.

However, in the 1980s a new policy was formed intended to broaden the range of primary care providers (Hutchison, Abelson, & Lavis, 2001). The nurses and other medical practitioners were not developed thus indicating a lack of human resource development. The approach of “big bang” policy thrust in the primary care system is Canada is not possible. Thus, it is believed that a more prudent approach would to begin two parallel system of innovation development.

The advisory panel formed in 2014 has promised to boost the physician-research capacities provided to specialist healthcare facilities (Eggertson, 2014). The need for innovation is healthcare is essential for Canada because it faces the problem of an aging population. The Health Minister Rona Ambrose who initiated the council said, “I am committed to finding ways to harness the tremendous potential of innovation in health care, to make better use of our existing resources, and to achieve an efficient, more responsive and financially sustainable health system for the long term.” (Eggertson, 2014) An innovation process in the healthcare sector will help in reducing healthcare spending to a great extent.

Private players who have put forth a positive step towards enhancing innovation in the healthcare sector are Mackenzie Health (Hill, 2014). The innovation policies adopted by the company was to provide greater patient safety and care in order to improve patient experience when hospitalized. The CEO of the company thus states,

Mackenzie Health has embarked on an Innovation Journey where collaboration, partnerships and evidence-based practice set the stage to provide the best patient-cantered care. At Mackenzie Health, we view innovation as a key factor for our organization going forward and strongly believe that pioneering projects such as the Innovation Unit will help us achieve our vision to create a world-class health experience for our community. (Hill, 2014, para 9)

International Comparison

This section presents a comparison of the innovation policy document to similar documents in other countries like the EU, UK, and/or US. The documents will be compared with one another and a brief account is provided to show why these documents have been produced.

The UK has a similar document named A Science and Innovation Policy for 21^st Century published in 2002 which establishes similar guiltiness and presents the need for developing a learning nation (UK Government, 2002). The paper identifies the need to innovate in science and technology in the twenty first century and the need to create a widened choice for all stakeholders. The paper delineates the importance of science and shows how it is essential to increase research in various fields to build a knowledge capacity for the country. The paper like the Canadian paper identifies the importance of research on science that would enhance global competitiveness:

Innovation is the key to the knowledge-driven economy, turning ideas and knowledge into products and services. Innovation gathers momentum as it moves in a cycle, as entrepreneurs and businesses take up ideas, backed by investment and management, and turned into products and services that consumers want. (UK Government, 2002, para 3)

The paper also presents an investment plan as has been done by the Canadian document. The paper presents that government will undertake invest in research in order to boost development. Further, the paper also identifies other stakeholders who may benefit from the research initiative of the government. Like the Canadian document, it has identified Higher Education as one of the key beneficiaries of the innovation drive.

An innovation related document was published by the EU Commission but for a more specific section – healthcare. The document published by European Commission (EC) that lays down the innovation strategy of the EC for healthcare facilities (EC, 2012). The aim of the commission was to provide “This means providing smarter, safer and patient-centred health services” (EC, 2012). The document presents a roadmap for the establishment of the better innovation in healthcare:

The European Commission’s eHealth Action Plan 2012 – 2020 provides a roadmap to empower patients and healthcare workers, link up devices and technologies, and invest in research towards the personalised medicine of the future. (EC, 2012, para 1)

The EU innovation document is different from that of the Canadian innovation policy statement as the former concentrates on providing the guidelines only for the healthcare sector. On the other hand, the UK government’s documents presents a comprehensive strategy account of what will be done in the UK regarding the innovation and research in the country in the twenty first century.

Documentary Policy Discourse Analysis

This section identifies the problem the document seeks to address. The document’s problem is identified and shown how it is framed. Then a solution is brought forth in this paper.

The premise on which the document is based on is the axiom that innovation in the field of science and development is the key to economic growth in the twentieth century (Whelan, 2001). The document defines innovation through a narrow definition based on enhancement of products and services. The innovation that is predominantly on the mind of the writer was improvement of production techniques rather than creating a new field of innovation.

The definition of innovation has been similarly used in the innovation documents of the UK. The definition follows: “Innovation is more simply defined as the process of developing and introducing new and improved products, services and production techniques into the marketplace, whereby these new production techniques may amount to a novel processing, assembly, inventory, distribution, managerial and/or organizational method” (Whelan, 2001, p. 3).

However, the area where the Canadian document differs from that of the UK is in its emphasis on building of a knowledge economy. For the UK, innovation in science and technology is solely dedicated to initiating and developing techniques of innovation that enhances productivity of the economy, however, Canada ingrains in its policy of developing knowledge based economy. The document points out that “a knowledge-based economy demands that Canada’s innovation system must not only get larger than it is at present, it must operate better and more effectively” thus creating the importance of making the economy a leaning economy (Whelan, 2001, p. 6).

The report is a detailed analysis separated into two parts. Part 1 has four chapters dealing with the innovation system to be laid in Canada and the systems and policies to be laid in the knowledge-based system. Part 2 consists of seven chapters dealing with the science and technology policy instruments that are used to drive the process of innovation in the country.

The document clearly points out that the need for innovation for a country is to gather more knowledge than other countries: “Canada’s recent record in acquiring knowledge relative to other OECD countries has been impressive” (Whelan, 2001, p. 109). Canada has faired better than other OECD countries in creating a knowledge base, improving their investment in education, and developing their research and development activity. Canadian expenditure on innovation activities is lower than other G-7 countries (except Italy) and most of the Western European countries (Whelan, 2001, p. 109).

However, it is surprising to note that the country’s productivity is high compared to its low expenditure on research and development. The document points out that Canada has a satisfactory pool of good and experienced scientists but makes little use of their talent to garner the country’s research. The research and development activity is found to be too narrow based on the requirements that are required by firms. Thus, there lacks a broad based innovation strategy that would go beyond the market forces. It is pointed out in the document that:

… Canada relies heavily on FDI and that R&D tends to be a centralized activity of firms. This results in innovation being too narrowly diffused about the country; essentially, it flows strictly from U.S. parents to their Canadian subsidiaries, leaving those Canadian domestic SMEs, particularly those without a global mandate to strategically seek foreign markets, too technologically far behind their rivals. (Whelan, 2001, p. 109)

Thus, the document points out the drawback of the innovation strategy adopted in Canada. Though the Federal government has introduced many policies to boost innovation and research in the country, the attention is much less than that in other developed countries like the UK. The problem lies in Canada’s inability to develop suitable network of tis businesses and sectors that creates a great impediment to amalgamating the innovation effort.

Thus, an innovation gap is created in the procedure, resulting in inefficient research processes. This is the reason behind low productivity in Canada. The earlier strategy of Canada had been to rely on its natural resources and foreign capital to boost its productivity. However, this strategy has to be changed. The present time requires a lot of innovation to gain competitive advantage over other countries. Canada must look forward to change their erstwhile strategy of relying on natural resources and foreign capital to boost their industrial production and therefore boost growth. This strategy has become redundant in the twentieth century. Thus, the aim of the country should be to invest more on R&D-intensive production and create a knowledge-based economy.

References

CAPI. (2014). Talent, Skills and People: Enabling Innovation in Food Processing. Web.

Canadian Bureau for International Education. (2014). Canada’s International Education Strategy. Web.

Côté, M., & Miller, R. (2012). Stimulating Innovation: Is Canada Pursuing the Right Policies?. International Productivity Monitor , 3-17. Web.

EC. (2012). Innovative healthcare in the 21st century. Web.

Eggertson, L. (2014). Federal Panel Aims to Improve Healthcare. Web.

Government of Canada. (1994). A New Framework for Economic Policy. Web.

Government of Canada. (1998). Canadian Opportunities Strategy. Web.

Hill, R. (2014). Mackenzie Health Officially Launches Innovation Unit: First-in-Canada Project Transforms the Delivery of Care. Web.

Hutchison, B., Abelson, J., & Lavis, J. (2001). Primary Care In Canada: So Much Innovation, So Little Change. Health Affairs , 20 (3), 116-131. Web.

Liberal Party of Canada. (1993). The Liberal Party of Canada Red Book. Web.

NSERC. (2010). Investing in People – An Action plan. Web.

OECD. (1999). Managing National Innovation Systems. Paris: OECD Publishing. Web.

Paquet, G., & Roy, J. (1995). Prosperity Through Networks: The Bottom-Up Strategy That Might Have Been,. In S. D. Phillips, How Ottawa Spends 1995-96: Mid-Life Crises (pp. 138-159). Ottawa: Carleton University Press. Web.

UK Government. (2002). A Science and Innovation Policy for the 21st century. Web.

Whelan, S. (2001). The Canadian Innovation Agenda for Twenty-first Century. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!